A question for Anti-Theists

[The Grand Nudger]

I am not an american so I will not discuss your current situation, I don't know the difference between your taxes and ours, but I can assure you in europe taxes on cigarettes are higher than in america. In some countries a pack costs 12€

Just checked the exchange rate, we have states that have rigged themselves up with an equivalent price.

Because if there is a profession that has some risks and sometimes professionals can be victims of abuse the state doesn't want to incentive it, specially seeing people use it as a last resort or way to make profit, not necessarily because they love it but because they can be desperate.

Taxing something is not interchangeable with "not incentivizing" something. Taxing something is also not "disincentivizing it". That's one of the defining hallmarks of a sin tax. You pick something that you know people will keep consuming - a product that simply does not seem to respond to disincentives under most circumstances - so that you can keep cashing in that check. If people stop consuming, then all of that "school funding" you promise the taxpayer as a cover for their plainly pious bullshit will evaporate. To be brutally honest - it evaporates anyway, because the fiction only has to be maintained long enough to cast a vote.

I don't doubt it

I would love to see some estimates on the heavy toll of the porn industry.

Cultural heritage is what defines who you are. Most western civilizations share some (but not all) cultural identities with the USA, religion has mainly an historical influence and some principles, even constitutional principles could have been influenced by religion. For instance when my constitution says 'Human life is sacred and inviolable' this could be influenced by religion, but the principle still fulfills the purpose either way.

Of course, I only suggest that while "fullfilling it's purpose" it might also be unloading un-neccessary and harmful baggage - as stated. If we give a bad reason for something - it;s just about the same as arguing against it. So if I say "we are endowed by our creator with unalienable rights" - I'm not making a very good argument for our rights - unless I can produce that creator to demonstrate that it did - indeed, endow us with anything like a right at all. Your constitution is basing it's conclusions on what your life is or is not (inviolable) based upon a word that means "connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration". Is that a good argument? Is that a "secular" position?